Evidence for the "Great Apostasy"

[Traveler]

Christ is present in a sacramental manner, which in no way denies the reality of his true body and blood. A sacrament, from a Catholic perspective is "an outward sign of an inward reality". Thus, when we are baptised in water, the water signifies cleansing, death and rebirth in the resurrection. But it really does what it signifies; our souls are washed clean from the stain of sin, we die to our old self and rise with Christ to new life. We are marked with an indellible mark claiming us a child of God.

In the sacrament of the Eucharist, once the bread and wine are consecrated, it is no longer bread and wine but the very body and blood of our Lord, hidden under the appearance of bread and wine. We having a loving God who can do anything. If he desires to be present under the appearance of bread and wine he is certainly capable. His body is real food and his blood is real drink, as Jesus tells us in the 6th chapter of John. He does not present us with his bloody flesh. We consume his glorified body and blood.

I think I understand the differences in scriptural references to that which is empirical and that which is given symbolic of empirical to help with understanding. I am, in this, case interested in what you personally believe (not what your church teaches) - this is because I am conversing with you and wish to understand what you are saying. So I am interested in your assessment and how you came to that understanding - what methods you used to validate your understanding.

There is something in your response that troubles me. I often hear the expression that G-d can do anything he whats - Including hiding truths as you implied. This is a most troubling doctrine concerning the G-d I understand and worship. I find this doctrine troubling on so many levels - for example that G-d I understand is a G-d of truth and does not lie - ever - I consider and believe that any effort to deliberately hide the truth of what something is in reality - is the essence of a lie - and I do not believe that G-d can or would do such a thing. If he did such a thing - I would not worship him. And one question I have for you - Why would you or do you worship a liar? Please do not see this question as a harsh response - I am trying to understand what you really believe and why? So I ask hard questions because I must.

We call this a mystery because we are limited by human understanding and human language in trying to describe a divine event. Yet we have received this divine revelation directly from Christ. The Apostles didn't pretend to understand this either. When the crowd left Jesus he turned to the Apostles and asked "will you also leave?". They didn't say "No , Lord, we understand what you are saying perfectly." They just responded "To whom shal we go? You have the words of everlasting life". They believed because of the one who told them, not because they understood. That is the position we take as well and since apostolic times the Eucharist has been the central focus of the Church; the source and summit of its faith. There would be no Catholic Church without the Eucharist; the true presence of Christ dwelling in each and every Catholic parish throughout the world.

As far as empirical evidence is concerned, we have hundreds of documented Eucharistic miracles where the host as turned to flesh, even in modern times. In every case it is heart tissue from the left ventrical (the part which makes the heart beat) and is AB positive (most prevelant in middle eastern men). I would be happy to give some specific information on these if you wish.

I am most interested in any empirical evidence you can provide - preferably raw data - rather than assessed conclusions but I will consider any evidence you have - since you say there are hundreds - please provide just one or two that you are most convinced by your research to be the best.

Thanks

The Traveler

[SteveVH]

I think I understand the differences in scriptural references to that which is empirical and that which is given symbolic of empirical to help with understanding. I am, in this, case interested in what you personally believe (not what your church teaches) - this is because I am conversing with you and wish to understand what you are saying. So I am interested in your assessment and how you came to that understanding - what methods you used to validate your understanding.

Well, first of all I believe it because my Church teaches it and has taught it since apostolic times. It is a revealed truth handed down to us. From personal experience I have witnessed the power of the Eucharist in my own life. In short, I believe everything the Church teaches about it and my own experience has verified it. The early Church Fathers write about it extensively, since the first century, and the New Testament verifies our claims: "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." (1 Cor 11:29)

There is something in your response that troubles me. I often hear the expression that G-d can do anything he whats - Including hiding truths as you implied.

No, that is not what I am implying. Could a person looking at Jesus tell that he was divine? No, his divinity was hidden in his humanity. Just so, Christ's body and blood are hidden under the appearance of bread and wine.

This is a most troubling doctrine concerning the G-d I understand and worship.

I find this doctrine troubling on so many levels - for example that G-d I understand is a G-d of truth and does not lie - ever - I consider and believe that any effort to deliberately hide the truth of what something is in reality - is the essence of a lie - and I do not believe that G-d can or would do such a thing. If he did such a thing - I would not worship him. And one question I have for you - Why would you or do you worship a liar? Please do not see this question as a harsh response - I am trying to understand what you really believe and why? So I ask hard questions because I must.

Well what you have described is nothing close to a Catholic doctrine so I wouldn't trouble yourself concerning us. Where in the world did you ever get the idea that I even implied that God is a liar? I must tell you that I take personal offense to that statement and that is about all I am going to say.

I am most interested in any empirical evidence you can provide - preferably raw data - rather than assessed conclusions but I will consider any evidence you have - since you say there are hundreds - please provide just one or two that you are most convinced by your research to be the best.

One of the most famous is called "The miracle at Lanciano". A priest was having difficulty believing in the real presence during Mass. At the moment of consecration, in the presence of the entire congregation, the bread turned to flesh and the wine to blood. The blood in the chalice coagulated into five separate clots of unequal size. On February 17, 1574, the Archbishop gave permission and the clots of blood were weighed. Each of the clots, though they varied in size, equalled the weight of the five clots taken together.

While this occured in 1574, the miracle still persists to this day. You can actually go to Lanciano, Italy and view it. Permission was given to a group of experts in 1970 who examined the flesh and blood. Laboratory tests were conducted by Professor Edoardo Linoli, Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy, and Professor Ruggero Bertoli from the University of Sienna. The following were the results of the tests:

- The substances at issue are truly flesh and blood.

- The flesh and blood are from a human source.

- The flesh is constituted in sections of the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventrical of a human heart.

- The flesh is a "heart", complete in its essential structure.

- The flesh and blood are of the same blood type, AB (relatively rare and confined to the geography of the Mediterranean).

- On microscopic inspection the blood contained proteins in the same normal proportions as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of fresh blood. It corresponded with human blood taken from a man's body that very same day.

- No traces were found anywhere of a permeation of the organic tissue by any substance designed to preserve them.

- No sign, not even of incipient corruption, degradation or decomposition was observed, although they have been exposed for centuries to the action of physical, atmospheric and biological agents.

We can chew on this for awhile and then I'll give you some more if you think it is necessary.

Edited February 19, 2013 by StephenVH

[Traveler]

Well, first of all I believe it because my Church teaches it and has taught it since apostolic times. It is a revealed truth handed down to us. From personal experience I have witnessed the power of the Eucharist in my own life. In short, I believe everything the Church teaches about it and my own experience has verified it. The early Church Fathers write about it extensively, since the first century, and the New Testament verifies our claims: "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." (1 Cor 11:29)

I find you answer interesting. I assume you were therefore born Catholic?

No, that is not what I am implying. Could a person looking at Jesus tell that he was divine? No, his divinity was hidden in his humanity. Just so, Christ's body and blood are hidden under the appearance of bread and wine.

Well what you have described is nothing close to a Catholic doctrine so I wouldn't trouble yourself concerning us. Where in the world did you ever get the idea that I even implied that God is a liar? I must tell you that I take personal offense to that statement and that is about all I am going to say.

Let we start over - What is the acceptable definition of a lie to you? Please be as inclusive as possible. Please be specific about efforts to deliberately hide truth. Also would you define truth? Specifically - how truthful is someone that hides any aspect or information related to understanding the truth - or as is testified in a court of law - The truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I personally have understandings of what is truth and what is a lie - I am trying to determine if our understandings are similar enough to find common ground.

As a side note - concerning religious things that are true and how G-d makes known what is to come to pass and how to discern what is from G-d. - see Genesis 41 verses 25 and 32

One of the most famous is called "The miracle at Lanciano". A priest was having difficulty believing in the real presence during Mass. At the moment of consecration, in the presence of the entire congregation, the bread turned to flesh and the wine to blood. The blood in the chalice coagulated into five separate clots of unequal size. On February 17, 1574, the Archbishop gave permission and the clots of blood were weighed. Each of the clots, though they varied in size, equalled the weight of the five clots taken together.

While this occured in 1574, the miracle still persists to this day. You can actually go to Lanciano, Italy and view it. Permission was given to a group of experts in 1970 who examined the flesh and blood. Laboratory tests were conducted by Professor Edoardo Linoli, Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy, and Professor Ruggero Bertoli from the University of Sienna. The following were the results of the tests:

- The substances at issue are truly flesh and blood.

- The flesh and blood are from a human source.

- The flesh is constituted in sections of the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventrical of a human heart.

- The flesh is a "heart", complete in its essential structure.

- The flesh and blood are of the same blood type, AB (relatively rare and confined to the geography of the Mediterranean).

- On microscopic inspection the blood contained proteins in the same normal proportions as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of fresh blood. It corresponded with human blood taken from a man's body that very same day.

- No traces were found anywhere of a permeation of the organic tissue by any substance designed to preserve them.

- No sign, not even of incipient corruption, degradation or decomposition was observed, although they have been exposed for centuries to the action of physical, atmospheric and biological agents.

We can chew on this for awhile and then I'll give you some more if you think it is necessary.

I will chew on this for a while - thanks

The Traveler

[livy111us]

While a little out of character (I try not to make it a habit of pointing out flaws in other faiths) I thought it may benefit some other LDS members on this board to point out why I personally do not believe in transubstantiation. I will post my piece and then leave the conversation because I don't want this to turn into a "bash".

A few scriptures

Genesis 9:4- But you will not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood

Leviticus 17:11-12– For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul. Therefore I said unto the children of Israel ‘No one among you will eat blood, nor will any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood

Acts 15:28-29–It seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality

“It is among the early gnostics [early Christian heretics] that there appears for the first time an

attempt to realize the change of the elements to the material body and blood of Christ.” (The

Influence of Greek Ideas Christianity, pg. 308)

The Christian scholar John Davies writes “The Hebrew, unlike the Greek, was not interested

in things in themselves but only in things as they are called to be. He was not concerned with an

object as such but with what it becomes in relation to its final reference according to the divine

purpose. The meaning of an object therefore does not lie in its analytical and empirical reality but in the will that is expressed by it. Hence Jesus could say of a piece of bread: 'This is my body.' The bread does not cease to be bread, but it becomes what it is not, namely the instrument and organ of his presence, because through his sovereign word he has given it a new dimension.” (The Early Christian Church, pg. 54)

Pope Paul VI said in the Credo of the people of God that "Every theological explanation which seeks some understanding of this mystery must, in order to be in accord with Catholic faith, maintain that in the reality itself, independently of our mind, the bread and wine have ceased to exist after the Consecration..." But numerous scientists have taken the wafer after it was blessed and the result was that it was, well, a wafer.

If anyone finds this post offensive, please let me know and I will remove it. I have nothing but respect for the Catholic faith but believe some LDS may find my comments beneficial.

[SteveVH]

While a little out of character (I try not to make it a habit of pointing out flaws in other faiths) I thought it may benefit some other LDS members on this board to point out why I personally do not believe in transubstantiation. I will post my piece and then leave the conversation because I don't want this to turn into a "bash".

A few scriptures

Genesis 9:4- But you will not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood

Leviticus 17:11-12– For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul. Therefore I said unto the children of Israel ‘No one among you will eat blood, nor will any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood

I wasn't aware that Mormons kept the Mosaic law. Which of the 613 laws do you keep and which do you reject?

Sorry, just kidding around. These verses are speaking of animal sacrifice and to eat the blood of an animal meant that you were ingesting the very life of the animal, bringing the animals life into your own life. In the case of the Eucharist we believe that we are bringing the life of Christ into our own, not an animal. You should also understand that we believe we are consuming Christ's glorified body and blood in an unbloody manner, under the appearance of bread and wine.

Acts 15:28-29–It seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality

And this applies how? Again, the reference is to the blood of animals, not the glorified body and blood of Christ.

“It is among the early gnostics [early Christian heretics] that there appears for the first time an attempt to realize the change of the elements to the material body and blood of Christ.” (The Influence of Greek Ideas Christianity, pg. 308)

I have no idea who the author of this source is, but I can give you evidence in the form of quotes of the early Church Fathers that prove that this has been held as a doctrine of the Church since its inception. The Gnostics had nothing to do with the doctrine. They did adopt a form of communion but it is beyond doubt that the Gnostics substituted water for the wine, just as the LDS Church does. So I would say that there is more evidence that the LDS faith was influenced by Gnosticism than Catholicism which rejected it as heretical.

The Christian scholar John Davies writes “The Hebrew, unlike the Greek, was not interested in things in themselves but only in things as they are called to be. He was not concerned with an object as such but with what it becomes in relation to its final reference according to the divine purpose. The meaning of an object therefore does not lie in its analytical and empirical reality but in the will that is expressed by it. Hence Jesus could say of a piece of bread: 'This is my body.' The bread does not cease to be bread, but it becomes what it is not, namely the instrument and organ of his presence, because through his sovereign word he has given it a new dimension.” (The Early Christian Church, pg. 54)

And we swould call Mr. Davies' position, heresy.

Pope Paul VI said in the Credo of the people of God that "Every theological explanation which seeks some understanding of this mystery must, in order to be in accord with Catholic faith, maintain that in the reality itself, independently of our mind, the bread and wine have ceased to exist after the Consecration..." But numerous scientists have taken the wafer after it was blessed and the result was that it was, well, a wafer.

Then the scientists have no idea of the doctrine of Transubstantiation. As I have mentioned in previous posts we do not call it "Transformation" because the form (appearance) of the elements remain bread and wine. The substance is what changes through the power of God. Those numerous (and nameless) scientists of yours were trying to disprove something the Church does not claim.

If anyone finds this post offensive, please let me know and I will remove it. I have nothing but respect for the Catholic faith but believe some LDS may find my comments beneficial.

Not offensive, just misinformed. :)

Edited February 19, 2013 by StephenVH

[Jason_J]

As to recognized saints, this is also untrue. A "saint" means only that the person is in heaven.

Where does that definition of "saint" come from?

[Vort]

Where does that definition of "saint" come from?

I'm sure that's a Catholic-specific definition.

[Jason_J]

While this occured in 1574, the miracle still persists to this day. You can actually go to Lanciano, Italy and view it. Permission was given to a group of experts in 1970 who examined the flesh and blood. Laboratory tests were conducted by Professor Edoardo Linoli, Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy, and Professor Ruggero Bertoli from the University of Sienna. The following were the results of the tests:

- The substances at issue are truly flesh and blood.

- The flesh and blood are from a human source.

- The flesh is constituted in sections of the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventrical of a human heart.

- The flesh is a "heart", complete in its essential structure.

- The flesh and blood are of the same blood type, AB (relatively rare and confined to the geography of the Mediterranean).

- On microscopic inspection the blood contained proteins in the same normal proportions as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of fresh blood. It corresponded with human blood taken from a man's body that very same day.

- No traces were found anywhere of a permeation of the organic tissue by any substance designed to preserve them.

- No sign, not even of incipient corruption, degradation or decomposition was observed, although they have been exposed for centuries to the action of physical, atmospheric and biological agents.

We can chew on this for awhile and then I'll give you some more if you think it is necessary.

Ignoring various responses to some of these points for now (this blog post gives a basic overview of some of that), remember that the alleged miracle is that in 700 AD, the bread turned into a piece of a human heart, right? This study does not prove that (it doesn't even address it, right?). Instead, what it shows is an analysis of a piece of a human heart. How do you know that the bread was transformed?

[SteveVH]

Ignoring various responses to some of these points for now (this blog post gives a basic overview of some of that), remember that the alleged miracle is that in 700 AD, the bread turned into a piece of a human heart, right? This study does not prove that (it doesn't even address it, right?). Instead, what it shows is an analysis of a piece of a human heart. How do you know that the bread was transformed?

It was not in 700 A.D. but 1574 A. D., not that this makes any difference to your question. Those that examined the tissue took it from the Monstrance where it has been viewed since the miracle happened. If you will notice the study said that "It corresponded with human blood taken from a man's body that very same day". Now, unless the evil priests who oversee the miraculous flesh and blood went out that same day and removed the heart out of some poor middleastern man and stuck a chunk of it in the Monstrance just before the scientists arrived, it is a little odd, don't you think, that it would be that fresh. Besides this, did you notice that they also found that the small peice of flesh comprises an entire heart, complete in its essential structure. Wonder how they pulled that off?

[SteveVH]

Where does that definition of "saint" come from?

From both the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox. In modern times (especially the last 200 years) the word has been co-opted and redefined by various ecclesial communites to fit their own unique doctrines. But the term has been understood in the Catholic sense for 2000 years.

Edited February 20, 2013 by StephenVH

[Jason_J]

It was not in 700 A.D. but 1574 A. D., not that this makes any difference to your question.

Are we talking about the same thing? The Miracle of Lanciano? That occurred around 700 AD, in the 8th century AD, not in 1574 AD.

Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano

Lanciano - Eucharistic Miracle

Eucharistic Miracles

Miracle of Lanciano - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Etc.

What happened in 1574 AD was the first study of the flesh, not the actual miracle.

And yes, I do think that it is important to the note the time period of the miracle.

Those that examined the tissue took it from the Monstrance where it has been viewed since the miracle happened. If you will notice the study said that "It corresponded with human blood taken from a man's body that very same day". Now, unless the evil priests who oversee the miraculous flesh and blood went out that same day and removed the heart out of some poor middleastern man and stuck a chunk of it in the Monstrance just before the scientists arrived, it is a little odd, don't you think, that it would be that fresh. Besides this, did you notice that they also found that the small peice of flesh comprises an entire heart, complete in its essential structure. Wonder how they pulled that off?

Firstly, I'm not sure I'm following your understanding of the chain of events here. Perhaps a link would be helpful. From what I have read, the actual miracle occurred in 700 AD, while the first testing of the flesh occurred in 1574 AD. So no, they would not have to have "stuck a chunk of it in the Monstrance just before the scientists arrived" (were there Monstrances around in 700 AD?), since the scientists didn't "arrive" until hundreds of years later.

Secondly, as shown in my previous link, there are studies that demonstrate the preservation of serum proteins in blood samples (also, the blood is coagulated, isn't it?).

Thirdly, what do you mean that the piece of flesh comprises an entire heart, complete in its essential structure? Are you saying that that piece of flesh contains left and right atria and ventricles, bicuspid and tricuspid valves, the aorta, etc.? If so, then why does this summary only mention left ventricle, myocardium, and endocardium (no epicardium?)?

It would be extremely helpful, for both believers and critics, if we could read the scientist's study. If you have an English translation available for us (I assume you've read the study?) that would be great. Thanks.

[Jason_J]

From both the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox. In modern times (especially the last 200 years) the word has been co-opted and redefined by various ecclesial communites to fit their own unique doctrines. But the term has been understood in the Catholic sense for 2000 years.

Actually that is incorrect. Latter-day Saints use the word "saint" in the same way that it is used in the Bible, to simply mean a member of Christ's Church (whether on this earth or not). " A "saint" means only that the person is in heaven.", as you state, doesn't even seem to comport with Catholic teaching on the "communion of saints" (and I'd be interested in reading the earliest sources for your stated definition, since it isn't contained in the Biblical record for one), which includes the church militant, church penitent, and church triumphant.

.

[SteveVH]

Actually that is incorrect. Latter-day Saints use the word "saint" in the same way that it is used in the Bible, to simply mean a member of Christ's Church (whether on this earth or not). " A "saint" means only that the person is in heaven.", as you state, doesn't even seem to comport with Catholic teaching on the "communion of saints" (and I'd be interested in reading the earliest sources for your stated definition, since it isn't contained in the Biblical record for one), which includes the church militant, church penitent, and church triumphant.

.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Glossary):

SAINT:

"The 'holy one' who leads a life in union with God through the grace of Christ and receives the reward of eternal life."

Obviously implicit in that definition is the fact that we do not know if one has reached eternal life unless and until they communicate with us through miracles, thus the canonization process which is usually quite long and arduous; several hundred years sometimes. And then you have St. Francis who was canonized within two years of his death. Now obviously, they were saints while on earth as well, its just that no one can be sure until after they die. We know there are saints among us right now, we just can't be absolutely certain who they are, though most of us can give a pretty accurate guess. We all hope that we are saints, obviously, because if we are not then eternal life with God is not our destiny.

So I understand how the definition I gave could be confusing, but it is correct in the Catholic sense. The communion of saints is a doctrine that basically states that we are not separated from our loved ones (or anyone in heaven, for that matter) by death. We are joined together as part of the Body of Christ.

[SteveVH]

Actually that is incorrect. Latter-day Saints use the word "saint" in the same way that it is used in the Bible, to simply mean a member of Christ's Church (whether on this earth or not). " A "saint" means only that the person is in heaven.", as you state, doesn't even seem to comport with Catholic teaching on the "communion of saints" (and I'd be interested in reading the earliest sources for your stated definition, since it isn't contained in the Biblical record for one), which includes the church militant, church penitent, and church triumphant.

It isn't in the Bible. But we are not a Church of the Bible, we are an Apostolic Church who produced the Bible for the rest of the world. Not everything we believe or have been taught is in the Bible. Using the Bible as the sole authority is a modern invention and a consequence of the so-called "Reformation". You won't find the word "Bible" in the Bible either, nor Trinity, nor "temple sealing", nor "ward", nor "telestial"... See what I mean. Big deal.

If you are interested in the origin of the concept of the Church Militant, the Church Suffering and the Church Triumphant I'm sure a google search will give you what you need. Try the Catholic Encyclopedia. I don't know off the top of my head and Im too tired tonight to research it. Maybe later.

[Jason_J]

It isn't in the Bible. But we are not a Church of the Bible, we are an Apostolic Church who produced the Bible for the rest of the world. Not everything we believe or have been taught is in the Bible. Using the Bible as the sole authority is a modern invention and a consequence of the so-called "Reformation". You won't find the word "Bible" in the Bible either, nor Trinity, nor "temple sealing", nor "ward", nor "telestial"... See what I mean. Big deal.

Perhaps you should reread my post. Nowhere did I state or imply that everything has to be taught in the Bible, nor that the Bible is the sole authority (certainly an odd assertion for a Latter-day Saint to make in the first place). Latter-day Saints are not Bible-only, nor do we derive our beliefs from study of the Bible, in contrast to various Protestant churches.

What I actually did ask was for a reference to the earliest usage of the word "saint" to mean "A "saint" means only that the person is in heaven.", and that the Bible, for one (i.e. for one example), does not contain that usage.

If you are interested in the origin of the concept of the Church Militant, the Church Suffering and the Church Triumphant I'm sure a google search will give you what you need. Try the Catholic Encyclopedia. I don't know off the top of my head and Im too tired tonight to research it. Maybe later.

Thanks. However, what I am really interested in (since Latter-day Saints already have a belief that saints are all members of Christ's Church throughout time, in this life and the next, united as members of His Body) is a reference for the earliest usage of saint that "means only that the person is in heaven".

Also, as a Latter-day Saint, I personally like this statement on the OrthodoxWiki:

"In the Holy Scripture, the word saint is used to refer to those who have been set apart for the service of God, consecrated for his purposes. As such, all members of the Church are called saints, regardless of their personal holiness or sinlessness. It is still appropriate to use the term in this way. "

But yes, whenever you have time. Good night.

[Traveler]

It isn't in the Bible. But we are not a Church of the Bible, we are an Apostolic Church who produced the Bible for the rest of the world. Not everything we believe or have been taught is in the Bible. Using the Bible as the sole authority is a modern invention and a consequence of the so-called "Reformation". You won't find the word "Bible" in the Bible either, nor Trinity, nor "temple sealing", nor "ward", nor "telestial"... See what I mean. Big deal.

If you are interested in the origin of the concept of the Church Militant, the Church Suffering and the Church Triumphant I'm sure a google search will give you what you need. Try the Catholic Encyclopedia. I don't know off the top of my head and Im too tired tonight to research it. Maybe later.

Can you tell us why the things that the Catholic Church believes in and teaches which is not in any ancient book of scripture are not placed into a contemporary book of scripture?

The Traveler

[SteveVH]

Can you tell us why the things that the Catholic Church believes in and teaches which is not in any ancient book of scripture are not placed into a contemporary book of scripture?

The Traveler

Everything that the Catholic Church believes and teaches is contained within the pages of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. I don't believe the LDS Church has anything comparable.

The divine deposit of faith handed down from the Apostles was done so orally. Remember that the Church had been alive and well for nearly 400 years before the Bible was canonized. Even after the Church discerned which writings were inspired and which were not and produced the Bible, the great majority of the population was illiterate until very recently (last 100 years or so). So we didn't have people running around with Bibles under their arms because they couldn't read them, not to mention that the printining press would not come about for some 1000 years later. Each copy of the sacred text was painstakingly copied by hand which took years, just for one copy.

The point is that the Bible is only that part of Sacred Tradition committed to writting. Even most Protestants are not aware that some of their practices come from the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church. For example, why do we worship on Sunday rather than Saturday? That command is found nowhere in the Bible. It was the Catholic Church that changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday because it is the day of Christ's resurrection. Why do we celebrate Christmas on December 25th? Catholic Tradition. Why does the date for Easter change every year? Because it is set according to the Catholic liturgical calendar. These are just a few examples. There are many more.

[Anddenex]

Everything that the Catholic Church believes and teaches is contained within the pages of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. I don't believe the LDS Church has anything comparable.

I will only respond to the last part of this statement, "I don' believe the LDS Church has anything comparable."

This last statement is irrelevant to The Traveler's question.

The Catholic Church is nearly 1900 years old.

The LDS believe in a restored gospel of Jesus Christ established in 1830, by which the Catholic Church is evidence of an apostasy, as already shared in this thread.

In comparison 1900 years to write down records versus nearly 200 years.

It is automatically implied and assumed the Catholic Church would have more records.

Thus, logically, how would a restored church have any more records than at the time it fell into apostasy? It wouldn't. It goes without saying.

[SteveVH]

I will only respond to the last part of this statement, "I don' believe the LDS Church has anything comparable."

This last statement is irrelevant to The Traveler's question.

The Catholic Church is nearly 1900 years old.

The LDS believe in a restored gospel of Jesus Christ established in 1830, by which the Catholic Church is evidence of an apostasy, as already shared in this thread.

In comparison 1900 years to write down records versus nearly 200 years.

It is automatically implied and assumed the Catholic Church would have more records.

Thus, logically, how would a restored church have any more records than at the time it fell into apostasy? It wouldn't. It goes without saying.

I certainly meant no offense. In light of Traveler's question:

"Can you tell us why the things that the Catholic Church believes in and teaches which is not in any ancient book of scripture are not placed into a contemporary book of scripture?" I was only pointing out the form (as in Catechism) in which our Church publishes its beliefs.

We don't write new Scripture subsequent to the Bible, instead we place all of our beliefs, whether they are from Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture into one book called the Catechism which is unfamiliar to Mormons because you have no such thing. That is all I was saying, okay? Instead you have four books which you consider Scripture. Great! This is not a contest as to who has more writings. As to "Scripture" you have more than we do. Wonderful!

[mordorbund]

The Catholic teaching concerning Christ's presence in the Eucharist is this:

We believe that upon the bread and wine being concecrated by a validly ordained priest (whose succession we can trace back to the Apostles - very important) that it becomes the true body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. The priest stands in the place of Christ, in the person of Christ (in persona Christi) and repeats the very words of Christ - "This is my body which is given for you... This is my blood of the new covenant which will be shed for you..." after calling down the Holy Spirit to change the substance of the bread and wine into Christ himself.

The term "Transubstantiation" is used to describe what happens. Notice the word is not "Transformation". The "form" or appearance of the bread and wine remain, however the substance is changed into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus. When we consume the consecrated host we enter into the most intimate relationship possible with God while on earth. It is how we become one just as Jesus and the Father are one. He becomes part of every fiber of our being and we become part of him.

Can you help me understand this better? I'm trying to understand what the stance is, but I'm getting conflicting messages trapped in my head. Let me restate what I'm hearing and where my confusion is and perhaps you can guide me to some understanding.

Once blessed, the bread and wine of the eucharist is literally the body and blood of Christ. This is not symbolic, typical, or metaphorical, but an actual reality. Reality that it is, the transubstantiation is not a transformation because it is not physically changed - that is, not in ways observable to us. [i think I can understand these two seeming conflicts with an analogy that I've been pondering, but I need to clear up the next part first.]

That being said, one of the evidences of the transubstantiation is the physical transformation that occurred and has been documented and studied scientifically. Is this miracle viewed as a scientific proof of the transubstantiation, or is this viewed as more of an illustrative proof that what God can transform He can transubstantiate? That is, the proof is more along the lines of when Jesus healed the cripple after forgiving his sins - not every penitent is healed, but the Healer can surely forgive. Is that the point of the miracle?

[Anddenex]

I certainly meant no offense. In light of Traveler's question:

"Can you tell us why the things that the Catholic Church believes in and teaches which is not in any ancient book of scripture are not placed into a contemporary book of scripture?" I was only pointing out the form (as in Catechism) in which our Church publishes its beliefs.

We don't write new Scripture subsequent to the Bible, instead we place all of our beliefs, whether they are from Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture into one book called the Catechism which is unfamiliar to Mormons because you have no such thing. That is all I was saying, okay? Instead you have four books which you consider Scripture. Great! This is not a contest as to who has more writings. As to "Scripture" you have more than we do. Wonderful!

No offense taken. I was just pointing out a part that appeared irrelevant, to me, in the conversation and Traveler's question.

[SteveVH]

Can you help me understand this better? I'm trying to understand what the stance is, but I'm getting conflicting messages trapped in my head. Let me restate what I'm hearing and where my confusion is and perhaps you can guide me to some understanding.

Once blessed, the bread and wine of the eucharist is literally the body and blood of Christ. This is not symbolic, typical, or metaphorical, but an actual reality. Reality that it is, the transubstantiation is not a transformation because it is not physically changed - that is, not in ways observable to us. [i think I can understand these two seeming conflicts with an analogy that I've been pondering, but I need to clear up the next part first.]

That being said, one of the evidences of the transubstantiation is the physical transformation that occurred and has been documented and studied scientifically. Is this miracle viewed as a scientific proof of the transubstantiation, or is this viewed as more of an illustrative proof that what God can transform He can transubstantiate? That is, the proof is more along the lines of when Jesus healed the cripple after forgiving his sins - not every penitent is healed, but the Healer can surely forgive. Is that the point of the miracle?

I guess I would put it this way. The miracle happened due to the doubts of a priest as he was concecrating the bread and wine. He doubted that it really was the flesh and blood of Christ. I believe, and this is only my opinion, that God removed the appearance of bread and wine in order to remove any doubt as to the reality of the sacrament. The event is very well documented and modern scientific studies back it up. In this case, you are correct, it was a matter of "transformation" in order to show the underlying reality of "transubstantiation".

There are literally hundreds of Eucharistic miracles. One very recent miracle happened in 1996 in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Father Alejandro Pezet was celebrating Mass and just after distributing communion a lady came up to him and said that she had found host abandoned in the church, stuck inside a candle holder. Now keep in mind that we believe that after the bread is concecrated it remains the body and blood of the Lord. It either must be consumed or disposed of in holy ground. Because of the condition of the host, Father Pezet placed the host in a bowl of water so that it would dissolve and could then be poured into the sacrarium (which has a pipe directly into blessed ground, rather than a sewer system). The problem was that the host would not dissolve. After about 10 days one of the assistant priests came to Father Pezet and told him that the host was becoming red. At first they were sure that someone was playing a hoax. Yet it kept changing. After a month it was transferred and stored in distilled water for the next three years until it appeared to be flesh.

The Archbishop finally sent representatives to the Church and a videographer accompanied them to witness and film the severing of a piece of the dark bloody material which was placed, with some of the original water from the bowl, in a test tube. It was sealed and labled and delivered to Dr. Frederick Zugibe, a New York heart specialist and forensic pathologist. They insisted on a blind test to that the origins of the material would not be known to scientists analyzing it. Dr. Zugibe was unaware of why the test was being done and the origin of the material.

Following is the transcript of the conversation with the doctor during his analysis:

Doctor: "This looks to be of human origin. It is flesh and I can see white blood cellls. It is definitely heart tissue from the left ventricle wall, not too far from a valvular area.

Question: "What is the ventricle wall?"

Doctor: "It's the part of the heart muscle that makes the heart beat. The left ventricle pupms blood to all parts of the body".

Doctor (continuing): "This heart muscle has lost its striations and there is the presence of intact white blood cells. The heart muscle is inflamed. There has been recent injury like those that I see in cases where someone has been beaten severly around the chest."

Question: "What do the white blood cells indicate?"

Doctor: "They indicate injury and inflamation. Well there are a lot of them intact. White blood cells can only exist if they are fed by a living body. This sample was alive at the moment it was collected."

Question: "And how long would they remain vital if they were in human tissue that was placed in water?"

Doctor: "Oh, they would dissolve within minutes and no longer exist."

The doctor was then informed of the origin of the heart tissue. He was, of course, shocked but his comment was: "How or why a communion host could hange its character and become living human flesh and blood is outside the ability of science to answer."

Edited February 21, 2013 by StephenVH

[mordorbund]

So, by way of analogy, it would be like flatlanders looking at a circle and being told that once it is blessed it becomes an ellipsoid. There would be no way to really test this, as the observable properties remain the same, but the Reality in the fullest sense would be that it has indeed changed. Sometimes, to bolster flatlanders' faith, and by way of illustration, the cross-section is shifted so the ellipsoid is manifest as an ellipse instead. Even then, the ellipse isn't the full Reality, but it brings us nearer to understanding it.

Edited February 21, 2013 by mordorbund

[Vort]

So, by way of analogy, it would be like flatlanders looking at an ellipse and being told that once it is blessed it becomes a sphere. There would be no way to really test this, as the observable properties remain the same, but the Reality in the fullest sense would be that it has indeed changed. Sometimes, to bolster flatlanders' faith, and by way of illustration, the cross-section is shifted so the sphere is manifest as a circle instead. Even then, the circle isn't the full Reality, but it brings us nearer to understanding it.

Any planar cross-section of a sphere is a circle...

[mordorbund]

Any planar cross-section of a sphere is a circle...

You are correct, I should have switched circle with ellipse and use an ellipsoid instead.